J-A22031-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
KEITH T. DOUGHERTY AND LARRY RUNK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
II, PENNSYLVANIA
Appellants
v.
ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellee No. 203 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered January 14, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Civil Division at No.: 14-529
BEFORE: BOWES, J., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
Appellants, Keith T. Dougherty (Dougherty) and Larry Runk II (Runk),
appeal pro se from the trial court’s order sustaining the preliminary
objections filed by Appellee, Erie Insurance Company, and dismissing this
declaratory judgment action. We dismiss.
On January 27, 2014, Dougherty filed a complaint against Appellee,
alleging that he is the lawful assignee of Runk in an automobile insurance
claim. On February 24, 2014, Appellee filed preliminary objections to the
complaint, arguing, inter alia, that Dougherty failed to produce a valid
assignment agreement. The court sustained the preliminary objections on
May 7, 2014, based on its determination that Dougherty lacked standing.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A22031-15
On May 27, 2014, Dougherty filed an “Amended Declaratory Judgment,”
which the court treated as an amended complaint. Appellee again filed
preliminary objections.1 On January 14, 2015, the court entered its order
sustaining Appellee’s preliminary objections and dismissing the action. This
timely appeal followed.
Preliminarily, we must consider the propriety of this appeal.2
The requirement of standing under Pennsylvania law is
prudential in nature, and stems from the principle that judicial
intervention is appropriate only where the underlying
controversy is real and concrete, rather than abstract. A party
has standing to bring a cause of action if it is aggrieved by the
actions complained of, that is, if its interest in the outcome of
the litigation is substantial, direct, and immediate. . . .
Hospital & Healthsystem Ass’n of Pa. v. Com., 77 A.3d 587, 599 (Pa.
2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Here, Dougherty has failed to produce any evidence of a valid
assignment. The only purported documentation is incoherent and is dated
May 27, 2014, four months after the original complaint was filed. (See
Amended Declaratory Judgment Complaint, 5/27/14, Exhibit 1). After
____________________________________________
1
Dougherty subsequently filed a praecipe to add Runk as co-plaintiff, and
Runk filed a pro se praecipe for entry of appearance.
2
“Justiciability questions are issues of law, over which our standard of
review is de novo and the scope of review is plenary.” Robinson Tp.,
Washington County v. Com., 83 A.3d 901, 917 (Pa. 2013) (citation
omitted).
-2-
J-A22031-15
review of the record, we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the
complaint for lack of standing.
Moreover, we emphasize that appellate briefs must conform materially
to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and
this Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to conform to
these requirements. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101; see also Commonwealth v.
Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-52 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 879 A.2d
782 (Pa. 2005) (although Court willing to construe pro se materials liberally,
pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules).
Here, Appellants’ brief is nearly unintelligible and falls well below the
minimum standards set forth in our Rules of Appellate Procedure. Even if we
liberally construe the materials, the lack of pertinent legal argument and
other substantial defects in the brief preclude us from conducting meaningful
review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101, 2119(a)-(c). Accordingly, we dismiss this
appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/15/2015
-3-